Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Centroamerica on April 02, 2024, 09:05:07 AM
-
Anybody read some of the books put out by the Kolbe Center. They have some good stuff.
There’s a DVD “How the World was made in six days”. Six parts. They go after “Bishop” Barron pretty good for being a modernist and claiming that Genesis is myth or legend.
-
Yes, I've viewed their materials, and they're pretty good ... though I've been fairly critical of their hostility toward Flat Earthers. Whether they want to accept FE or not is their business, but the fact tha they lump us into the same category as the Modernist heretics who deny the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is both insulting and slanderous.
-
Yes, I've viewed their materials, and they're pretty good ... though I've been fairly critical of their hostility toward Flat Earthers. Whether they want to accept FE or not is their business, but the fact tha they lump us into the same category as the Modernist heretics who deny the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is both insulting and slanderous.
This. I like a lot of their material but I think they were misinformed about the (Catholic) FE viewpoint and position and have just been attacking strawmen. There are some what I call "flattards" out there who refuse to look at their own views with a critical eye and if you say anything at all against FE or ask how FE explains this or that they basically just call you a NASA shill and don't even try to explain anything and unfortunately this attitude gives legitimate and balanced FE'ers a bad name and Kolbe Center attacks those types instead of sitting down with the balanced types to try to get to the truth.
-
Right, and on top of that, isn't the most important thing here that we too (Catholic FEs) strongly believe in and promote the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture? On that most important point, we are "on the same side," and would like to consider it a "disagreement among friends". Instead, in their video about how God made the earth, they indiscriminately lump us in with those who consider the Book of Genesis to be a "myth", implying that we're somehow "just as bad" as those types.
-
Right, and on top of that, isn't the most important thing here that we too (Catholic FEs) strongly believe in and promote the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture? On that most important point, we are "on the same side," and would like to consider it a "disagreement among friends". Instead, in their video about how God made the earth, they indiscriminately lump us in with those who consider the Book of Genesis to be a "myth", implying that we're somehow "just as bad" as those types.
Yeah. I honestly think it's just more of a popularity/human respect thing where they don't want to seem "too different" and lose support/donations/etc. so they beat the rag doll of Flat Earth and sum all of us under the same umbrella to get more "street cred" with people who don't even like them.
I hope someday they can be open to the real discussions and views of a balanced FE opinion/theory. I do know that FEers don't even all agree on what causes certain phenomenon and that could be stumbling block to an extent.
-
Kolbe seem to relish challenges. Is there a flat earther to offer to challege them?
-
Kolbe seem to relish challenges. Is there a flat earther to offer to challege them?
Well, Dr. Sungenis (who's been working closely with Kolbe) debated Rob Skiba some time ago.
I'm not even that concerned about their belief in the earth as a globe. I'm objecting primarily to their slander of Flat Earth Catholics as if they were in the same category as the Modernist heretics who deny the inerrancy and historicity of Sacred Scripture, and their huge crusade against FE.
-
Yeah. I honestly think it's just more of a popularity/human respect thing where they don't want to seem "too different" and lose support/donations/etc. so they beat the rag doll of Flat Earth and sum all of us under the same umbrella to get more "street cred" with people who don't even like them.
I hope someday they can be open to the real discussions and views of a balanced FE opinion/theory. I do know that FEers don't even all agree on what causes certain phenomenon and that could be stumbling block to an extent.
Yes, that's exactly right. They think that by bashing the FEs (and easy target, since we've been the targets of many propaganda campaigns, to the point that "flat earther" has become synonymous with a "moron") they'll gain credibility with NASA and the scientific establishment. They could simply distance themselves from the theory and say "We're not flat earthers.", but they're going the extra mile here. They really need to wake up and realize that NASA and the scientific establishment will NEVER take them seriously and will mock and deride them every bit as much as they mock and deride Flat Earthers.
-
Kolbe center, from what I have gathered, are geocentric. They believe the earth is a sphere that is fixed in the center of the universe and does not move. That may be why they go after flat earthers.
-
Kolbe center, from what I have gathered, are geocentric. They believe the earth is a sphere that is fixed in the center of the universe and does not move. That may be why they go after flat earthers.
Nah, there's more to it. FEs are geocentric also, BTW. It would be one thing if they just rejected FE, but they're on a campaign to attack FEs, and lump us in with Modernist heretics as if were "just as bad". They commissioned (paid) Dr. Sungenis to write a hit piece on FE. Simply not believing in it does not explain their zeal in attacking it.
FEs also believe that the earth is fixed, at the center of the universe, and does not move. FE Catholics also believe in the inerrancy and history of the Sacred Scriptures. Many FEs used to support Dr. Sungenis and his work, as well as the Kolbe Institute. But for some reason they turned on FEs with great ferocity.
-
Kolbe center, from what I have gathered, are geocentric. They believe the earth is a sphere that is fixed in the center of the universe and does not move. That may be why they go after flat earthers.
My understanding is that the Kolbe center is run by mostly protestants. Sungenis fits in with the prots because he's a hardcore, pro-new-rome, indulter.
Both Prots and hardcore indulters suffer from the same philosophical error, which affects their thinking on a variety of topics (i.e. religion, politics, culture, etc). Fundamentally (pun intended) prots believe that the "centrist" position is the best way for society to operate. So they gravitate towards a "moderate" approach in all things.
1. Heliocentrism is wrong; flat earth is extreme; the best approach is geocentrism.
2. Atheism is wrong; Catholic Church is extreme; the best approach is protestantism/love-God-in-your-own-way.
3. V2 is wrong; Traditional catholicism is extreme; the best approach is indultism/fighting-for-the-church-from-the-inside.
Each of topics (and there are many more examples) suffers from a false dichotomy. They falsely label the extremes, to arrive at their desired "middle ground". Their core error is to define truth based on "the most popular opinion of the day, which most people agree on", then they work backwards to falsely define the extremes, to support their "popular, centrist" solution.
In our day and age, society is so far left/sinful, that the Truth does *seem* extreme, but it's not so.
-
My understanding is that the Kolbe center is run by mostly protestants.
I'm not sure if this is true literally, but I would definitely agree it is true functionally.
Many of the Kolbe Center arguments (other than specific theological ones) seem to be directly from Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis line of thinking. As a result, some of it is generally OK, while other times it lacks a more nuanced Catholic approach. The result can sound more like an aping of the Protestant creationists rather than a uniquely Catholic creation concept/model.
Based upon personal experiences with Hugh Owen and other Kolbe staff, I think very are well intentioned, but are also very naive at times.
-
Based upon personal experiences with Hugh Owen and other Kolbe staff, I think very are well intentioned, but are also very naive at times.
Agree. I like Hugh Owen and i've heard him speak personally. We are all indebted to him and his work, which provides a valuable service to culture, history, and science.
In the grand scheme of things, the debate over flat earth is non-essential and I wouldn't harbor any ill feelings towards anyone who rejects it; it just doesn't matter that much in life.
-
My understanding is that the Kolbe center is run by mostly protestants.
I did not get that impression, since I've seen them regularly citing Magisterium and (Conciliar) "Magisterium" in their videos. I got the impression that they're mostly Catholic. And they're named after "St." Maximiliarn Kolbe.
Edited to Add:
https://kolbecenter.org/ (page footer)
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation is a Roman Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to glorifying the Most Holy Trinity by proclaiming the truth about the origins of man and the universe. The Kolbe Center seeks to educate the public, particularly within the Catholic Church, in the truth of creation as revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and as confirmed by the findings of modern science.
-
I'm not sure if this is true literally, but I would definitely agree it is true functionally.
Many of the Kolbe Center arguments (other than specific theological ones) seem to be directly from Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis line of thinking. As a result, some of it is generally OK, while other times it lacks a more nuanced Catholic approach. The result can sound more like an aping of the Protestant creationists rather than a uniquely Catholic creation concept/model.
I'd disagree. They rely heavily upon the Church Fathers (and Doctors) for a Catholic cretion concept/model, despite sometimes overlapping with Ham et al. in their scientific arguments (many of which just so happen to be true).
-
I did not get that impression, since I've seen them regularly citing Magisterium and (Conciliar) "Magisterium" in their videos. I got the impression that they're mostly Catholic. And they're named after "St." Maximiliarn Kolbe.
Ahhh. My bad. I must've inferred that incorrectly. I remember Hugh gave a talk at a Catholic conference and he kept talking about his "protestant science friends" who were the only ones in academia that he trusted to defend Creation and Genesis. I assumed (incorrectly) that he worked with a bunch of good, bible-supporting, protestant scientists. (He probably does work with them, they just don't work AT the Kolbe Institute).
-
In the grand scheme of things, the debate over flat earth is non-essential and I wouldn't harbor any ill feelings towards anyone who rejects it; it just doesn't matter that much in life.
Well, truth always matters. It matters enough to the liars in charge to have kept it hidden. One thing that's certain with FE that you can't get from plain geocentrism is that with FE, "Intelligent Design" becomes absolutely unavoidable. There are many FEs out there who were atheists at first but then converted to some kind of belief in God (at least at first step), but big-universe globe earth geocentrism could still be explained away. Now, it just so happens that most geocentrists are "Christians" of some variety, but nearly all of them were Christian first. I don't see atheists being convinced by the geocentric arguments of a Dr. Sungenis, whereas many people who aren't really believers have become convinced by FE merely due to the preponderance of evidence that anyone could go out there with a camera or telescope and obtain for themselves. I think that the FE case is just much more "accessible" to average people than a lot of Sungenis' arguments for geocentrism, which are more obscure and require a much stronger ability to grasp scientific principles.
-
(He probably does work with them, they just don't work AT the Kolbe Institute).
I would imagine that some Prots might work at the Institute. Who knows?
-
One thing that's certain with FE that you can't get from plain geocentrism is that with FE, "Intelligent Design" becomes absolutely unavoidable. There are many FEs out there who were atheists at first but then converted to some kind of belief in God (at least at first step), but big-universe globe earth geocentrism could still be explained away. Now, it just so happens that most geocentrists are "Christians" of some variety, but nearly all of them were Christian first. I don't see atheists being convinced by the geocentric arguments of a Dr. Sungenis, whereas many people who aren't really believers have become convinced by FE merely due to the preponderance of evidence that anyone could go out there with a camera or telescope and obtain for themselves.
Great points. Never thought of it that way. And didn’t know atheists converted due to FE. God uses a million different ways but had not heard this way.
-
I'd disagree. They rely heavily upon the Church Fathers (and Doctors) for a Catholic cretion concept/model, despite sometimes overlapping with Ham et al. in their scientific arguments (many of which just so happen to be true).
Perhaps they demonstrate competent knowledge about the Church Fathers and Doctors on some creation-related topics, but not others. Maybe this is a nitpick, but I was surprised once when they were approached with the "Did predator animals consume other animals before the Fall?" question. Basically, St. Thomas Aquinas's work says "yes", while other Catholics might say "no" and most Protestant creationists/Ken Ham definitely say "no". Therefore, from a Catholic perspective, this is a topic worthy of more detailed discussion than in Protestant young earth creation circles, which unanimously say "no". A more nuanced answer to the question would be needed from a Catholic creationist to acknowledge that there might be different opinions between Church Fathers and Doctors on the subject. And it is an important question to clear up, as it it is often touted as a big question of debate in evolution vs creation discussions.
However, the Kolbe representative basically just quoted Ken Ham's opinion verbatim and was completely oblivious to the fact that St. Thomas held an opposing opinion that would need to be addressed. Hence the illusion of aping the "Protestant" answer rather than coming up with a uniquely Catholic one.
I'd agree with you though that as some of the "big picture" Ham et al. scientific opinions might be true, so would Kolbe's due to overlap, and vice-versa.
-
I don't know if it's true, but Fr Hesse said St Thomas Aquinas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception, I think it was. So he could be wrong about what lions ate before the fall, but I am curious to hear his explanation.
-
I don't know if it's true, but Fr Hesse said St Thomas Aquinas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception...
From what I understand that is correct; if I recall St. Bernard of Clairvaux also had somewhat different ideas regarding the Immaculate Conception at one time. It's possible they were wrong in other areas too. However, without critical examination of the individual arguments, I think we must be careful when assuming that a mistake in one area means by default an error in others, as that could easily become a "slippery slope" (not saying you are doing this, but just saying it generally).
Re the St. Thomas position on non-rational animal death before the Fall, it is in Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm) (embedded in the reply to Article 1's Objection 2). It's in interesting topic of discussion/critique that in many ways merits its own thread.
However, for the sake of this thread which is focused on Kolbe, my argument is not necessarily that Kolbe should have just unanimously accepted the St. Thomas position on this, but that they should have at least have been aware that it existed and addressed it in some way.
-
However, without critical examination of the individual arguments, I think we must be careful when assuming that a mistake in one area means by default an error in others ...
Strawman. Absolutely no one has ever held that "a mistake in one area means by default an error in others". It's usually used an illustration for the pseudo-pious argument that Doctors of the Church are effectively infallible simply because the Church has approved them as Doctors. And, yes, I have heard that posted on this forum, that since the Church's authority delared them Doctors, we must accept everything they taught as true. It's usually been in the area of Baptism of Desire, and often by people who (ironically or hypocritically) reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation.
-
Strawman. Absolutely no one has ever held that "a mistake in one area means by default an error in others".
"Strawman: A form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"
With all due respect Ladislaus, I disagree. I'm not sure you understood the post. My meaning was that it would be a mistake to assume that St. Thomas was wrong on some topics/many topics just because he was wrong on one topic. And I clarified in the post that I wasn't accusing the poster responded to of this error, but just stating it generally as a direction to avoid. Therefore, this statement was not meant to be interpreted as a refutation of the poster (or anyone else here), and I acknowledged that the poster didn't present, say, or do what I was critical of. It just was meant as a well-intentioned general warning due to personal experiences.
And with regard to the reality of someone falling prey to the false thought that "a mistake in one topic means by default an mistake in other topics", I've seen it happen in real life. I've observed the unfortunate case of a family member realizing that St. Thomas was in error about the Immaculate Conception, and then illogically rejecting or becoming suspect about everything St. Thomas said or did. They then rejected any kind of scholastic theology concepts and relied only upon subjective feeling, leading to very strange decision making. I disagree with this, and I think both of us would heartily agree that this kind of progression is a big mistake.
-
"Strawman: A form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent"
With all due respect Ladislaus, I disagree. I'm not sure you understood the post.
You're "refuting" a position that absolutely no one holds, namely, that "a mistake in one area means by default an error in others". Nobody has ever held that position here.
-
I don't know if it's true, but Fr Hesse said St Thomas Aquinas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception
A quick defense of St Thomas is in order.
It is incorrect to say he was "wrong"; it is more correct to say he "wasn't fully correct". Overall, his view on the Immaculate Conception did not violate the doctrine, in a general sense. He was only incorrect on some details, of a scientific/physical nature.
St Thomas believed that (based on the medical knowledge of the day) that God waited a month or so after conception, before He infused the soul (i.e. before the cells were considered to be "life). The science of the Middle Ages thought that there were so many miscarriages early after conception that God would wait to create a human being until 30 days had passed, because this was a time, beyond which most pregnancies were viable and normal.
Based on this scientific view, St Thomas said that the cells of Our Lady may be been tainted with Original Sin for the first 30 days...but this was only physical matter. After 30 days, when God infused the soul, and created Our Lady as a person, She was free from Original Sin at that very second.
Had St Thomas (and the Middle Ages medical community) known that God infused the soul from the "first instant" of conception, then they would have said that Our Lady never had any touch of Original Sin, which is the current dogma of our Faith.
So, St Thomas was wrong on a technicality of a defect of medical knowledge; he was not wrong on the substantial meaning of the doctrine, or its purpose, which is to love, honor and respect Our Lady's great grace from God.
-
You're "refuting" a position that absolutely no one holds, namely, that "a mistake in one area means by default an error in others". Nobody has ever held that position here.
Again with respect Ladislaus, as the previous posts reproduced below show, I never did infer guilt or accuse anyone here on the forum of the position you are referring to above. Unlike the strawman fallacy, which infers that the opponent believes something which they really do not (and which is subsequently refuted), I wasn't attempting to refute (or give the illusion of refuting) anyone here on this forum. Clarifications were made in the posts to make it clear I wasn't targeting or accusing anyone, but just issuing a warning of a potential position someone could adopt (see italicized bolded text in my previous posts reproduced below).
We argue/refute/critique other mistaken positions that forum members here do not hold all the time (i.e. atheist evolution), and technically that is not a strawman argument.
And I did observe this position in a family member, as bolded in green in the post below, so in truthfulness it cannot be said that "absolutely no one" holds this error. Maybe no one here at this moment holds this position, but those outside of this specific forum have.
To be clear, my meaning of position you quote above (underlined text) was re-phrased/further clarified in the post reproduced below (also underlined text). I meant the red text to be referring to the same position. Is it understood that these two statements were referring to the same position, or did you think I was referring to two different positions between these two posts?
Not trying to be confrontational, just want to sort this out.
With all due respect Ladislaus, I disagree. I'm not sure you understood the post. My meaning was that it would be a mistake to assume that St. Thomas was wrong on some topics/many topics just because he was wrong on one topic. And I clarified in the post that I wasn't accusing the poster responded to of this error, but just stating it generally as a direction to avoid. Therefore, this statement was not meant to be interpreted as a refutation of the poster (or anyone else here), and I acknowledged that the poster didn't present, say, or do what I was critical of. It just was meant as a well-intentioned general warning due to personal experiences.
And with regard to the reality of someone falling prey to the false thought that "a mistake in one topic means by default an mistake in other topics", I've seen it happen in real life. I've observed the unfortunate case of a family member realizing that St. Thomas was in error about the Immaculate Conception, and then illogically rejecting or becoming suspect about everything St. Thomas said or did. They then rejected any kind of scholastic theology concepts and relied only upon subjective feeling, leading to very strange decision making. I disagree with this, and I think both of us would heartily agree that this kind of progression is a big mistake.
From what I understand that is correct; if I recall St. Bernard of Clairvaux also had somewhat different ideas regarding the Immaculate Conception at one time. It's possible they were wrong in other areas too. However, without critical examination of the individual arguments, I think we must be careful when assuming that a mistake in one area means by default an error in others, as that could easily become a "slippery slope" (not saying you are doing this, but just saying it generally).
-
A quick defense of St Thomas is in order.
It is incorrect to say he was "wrong"; it is more correct to say he "wasn't fully correct". Overall, his view on the Immaculate Conception did not violate the doctrine, in a general sense. He was only incorrect on some details, of a scientific/physical nature.
St Thomas believed that (based on the medical knowledge of the day) that God waited a month or so after conception, before He infused the soul (i.e. before the cells were considered to be "life). The science of the Middle Ages thought that there were so many miscarriages early after conception that God would wait to create a human being until 30 days had passed, because this was a time, beyond which most pregnancies were viable and normal.
Based on this scientific view, St Thomas said that the cells of Our Lady may be been tainted with Original Sin for the first 30 days...but this was only physical matter. After 30 days, when God infused the soul, and created Our Lady as a person, She was free from Original Sin at that very second.
Had St Thomas (and the Middle Ages medical community) known that God infused the soul from the "first instant" of conception, then they would have said that Our Lady never had any touch of Original Sin, which is the current dogma of our Faith.
So, St Thomas was wrong on a technicality of a defect of medical knowledge; he was not wrong on the substantial meaning of the doctrine, or its purpose, which is to love, honor and respect Our Lady's great grace from God.
Good clarification, thank you
-
Again with respect Ladislaus, as the previous posts reproduced below show, I never did infer guilt or accuse anyone here on the forum of the position you are referring to above.
Surely, you must think "someone" holds it, since you've gone to great lengths to "refute" the position. Why else would you waste the time?
St. Thomas wasn't infallible ... that's the bottom line.